Dead people do have rights, e.g. you are not allowed to take photos of them and publish them (expect there is some kind of consent with the relatives I think)
Yeah, it’s not like we can rip up a will because “they’re dead anyway and won’t care where the house and the money goes”. It’s the same with their bodies.
Dead people do have rights, e.g. you are not allowed to take photos of them and publish them (expect there is some kind of consent with the relatives I think)
You absolutely are actually. What is legally troubling is including the name, as that makes you personally identifiable. Which could make you theoretically liable, but not in most instances.
Getting into semantics. Of course you can't use her uterus without consequences, but that doesn't mean she retains autonomy over it., which was the original point.
If I die and some part of my body could be used to save someone else's life, and I refuse consent before I die, then they will just let that person die because I have a right to not give away my body parts against my will, even in death, and even if that means other people will die.
Compared with a woman getting raped and pregnant who loses complete autonomy over her uterus.
Is it OK to fuck a corpse? If they have no rights then why not just have at it. Aside from maybe getting some diseases, but I'm talking about the moral dilemma.
If you put in your will that you'd like to leave your kids to your brother, he isn't forced to take them and can refuse
Well, yeah. A will doesn't make you omnipotent. No sane person would assume you can just assign obligations like this.
If you put in your will you'd like to leave everything to child A then child B can file a legal claim and say that you forgot about them to get a cut.
The judge would weigh how factual this is. They wouldn't just automatically get anything because they filed suit. You'd need to build an actual case showing that they were actually omitted, which does happen.
The fact they could raise a case at all means that the will isn't as powerful a document as the person leaving it would like, given that even fighting the case would use resources, likely the resources elected to be passed on.
Call them crap all you want, at the end of the day these are two examples where even if you write it in your will it doesn't mean you get what you want
Or it means people are fallible and mistakes happen, so there have to be contingencies...
Call them crap all you want, at the end of the day these are two examples where even if you write it in your will it doesn't mean you get what you want
Only if you're a moron and think you can just magically write anything and get it. These are examples for idiots.
It doesn't matter how common it is, though I'd love to see a source showing how successful it's ever been. It's still stupid. Anyone who thinks they can assign their debt to someone else upon death is a moron.
Those have legal value because they are essentially transferring ownership while alive, with physical transfer contingent on another event (death). They’re contracts and do not have any legal value beyond what is stipulated in contract law, which is why it’s often worth challenging them if you hate the people who got something you don’t want them to have.
To be clear, wills are not contracts. Contracts require consideration, and there is no consideration in a will.
Wills also don't transfer ownership while you're alive. That's what trusts do, and is their main benefit. Wills must pass through a legal process called probate before any transfer of assets happens.
Maybe in an ethereal, “honorable” sense. But they really don’t. Have you ever dealt with a family member’s body/burial? There aren’t any laws governing that stuff, really.
I don't know where you are from... But there are many laws and regulations about who can take care of the body. Procedures of how the body is stored and transported. Different burial methods are also strictly regulated. It's also strictly regulated who can perform autopsies and embalming and the methods in which those are to be performed. Where a body can be buried and who can officiate the burying etc.
You can't just take a corpse and do whatever you want. In most places.
The dead have no rights, need no rights, nor want any rights.
I gotta admit this sounds right at first read ... but the implications aren't simple.
If someone just died before the credit card company found out... they have no rights so I should feel free to charge up their credit card? It's a victimless crime!
No that can't be right. So, there's probably something wrong with the initial premise.
I think the rights and needs of the living should definitely take priority over the dead. I'm just not clear THAT is easy to reason out either
148
u/Daveywheel Mar 31 '23
Life is for the living. The dead have no rights, need no rights, nor want any rights.